Hermeneutics
Scot McKnight, "Calvinism: My History 2"
Submitted by SEA on Thu, 12/29/2011 - 10:45amFollow the link to view part 2 of distinguished New Testament scholar Scot McKnight's personal testimony of coming out of Calvinism for a more biblical evangelical view and his discussion of the warning passages in Hebrews: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2011/12/07/calvinism-my-history-2/ .
On the Ordo Salutis and Colossians 2:13, As Presented by Brian N. Daniels
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Wed, 12/14/2011 - 8:20amThe following is taken from a larger essay, exegeting Colossians 2:13, by Brian N. Daniels1, a Ph.D. student at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, and a four-point Calvinist.
"Of the many issues that divide Arminians and Calvinists, one of the more interesting has to be the relationship between regeneration and faith. The question may be put like this: which comes first and grounds the other, new life given by the Spirit or belief in Christ? This question is important because of its connection to many other points of soteriology. One’s answer generally reveals much about what he believes regarding the nature of grace and depravity, as well as the more difficult issue of election and predestination.
The Implication of the Calvinistic Hermeneutic of Total Depravity
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Thu, 11/03/2011 - 10:35amThe acronym TULIP1, in my opinion, works well as a system and should be taken as a whole and not in parts. If one accepts the doctrine of Unconditional Election -- which is a product of the Calvinist's view of Total Depravity and Total Inability -- then I see no reason for rejecting either the doctrines Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, or of course Perseverance of the Saints. I think the only consistent form of Calvinism is Supralapsarian TULIP Calvinism, and any deviation from such is inconsistent. For the sake of space, I do not care to explain my reasons why; I just want to make those statements and carry on to the main point of the post.
James White, Roger Olson & 1 Timothy 2:4
Submitted by postpre on Thu, 10/20/2011 - 2:19pmIn a recent blog post (10/13/2011), James White took issue with Roger Olson's references to 1 Timothy 2:4 in his new book, Against Calvinism. How does White's view stand up when further scrutinized?
No Interpretation Needed: Deliverance from Naïve Realism
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Tue, 10/11/2011 - 6:43amWe have all, most likely, encountered believers who insist that they neither adhere to this or that theological position: they are, simply, "biblicists" (i.e., what opponents of this theory call naïve realism1). Such believers "don't follow a man's teaching," they "just read their Bible." On one level, there is an admirable simplicity in such a confession. On another level, however, such an approach to biblical interpretation is not only naïve but is fallacious and self-deceptive because it neglects the fact that we all read Scripture from cultural and personal presuppositions already in place.
Various Interpretations vs. Truth
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Fri, 09/02/2011 - 11:36amIs Calvinism biblical? Is Arminianism biblical? Is Pentecostalism biblical? Is Cessationism biblical? Is Exhaustive Determinism biblical? Is Libertarian Free Will biblical? Is Open Theism biblical? Is Trinitarianism biblical? Is Modalism biblical? We can ask this question regarding biblicity about any Christian teaching. To the individual who holds to Covenantal theology, for example, Dispensationalism is not considered "biblical." But what, exactly, does one mean by insisting that a contrary view is not "biblical"? Is there an implication of theological arrogance in insisting that our opponent's theology is "not biblical"? How do we determine the biblicity of a teaching?
How One's Theology Dishonors the Glory of God
Submitted by WilliamBirch on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 8:20amDifficult as it may be to fathom, aiming to attribute all things to the glory and honor of God through Jesus Christ has the potential to lead a person to dishonor Him. For example, should someone declare to murder another human being for the glory and honor of God, such would actually bring Him shame and dishonor, for God commands: "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed; for in the image of God He made man" (Gen. 9:6 NKJV). Therefore, if anyone claims that he or she commits an evil for the glory of God through Jesus Christ, then we know that person is not speaking according to the truth of God's Word.
A Slightly Less Quick Response
Submitted by Martin Glynn on Fri, 06/17/2011 - 10:49amAlan Kurschner recently made a response to my reply to his "question" last week. I first I hesitated on whether or not to reply, since I found his response to be, well, silly. However, there are two reasons why I have now decided to respond: 1) I started it, so I should at least give one more response and 2) it is exactly because of people like Kurschner that I got involved with SEA. I will say, though, that this is my post on this subject.
Thoughts on John 6
Submitted by Martin Glynn on Wed, 04/27/2011 - 1:52pmHere are some thoughts that I had when I decided to dig deep into John chapter 6:
Arminius on Sola Scriptura
Submitted by Godismyjudge on Tue, 04/26/2011 - 12:17pmby Godismyjudge
I recently read Michael Patton's post on the canon of scripture, Dave Armstrong’s response, and Turretinfan’s debate with Matthew Bellisario on sola scriptura. Before I continue, let me make it clear that I agree with sola scriptura and reject the Catholic explanation of the rule of faith. Further, I think Michael and Turretinfan did a good job overall, and were more convincing than their Catholic opponents. Nevertheless, both Michael Patton and Turretinfan made maneuvers that surprised me, and in my opinion weakened their defense of sola scriptura.
